Roger Pearse

I don't know about most people, but I have always had difficulty getting a handle on Greek catenae on the gospels.

I've had occasion to write a few posts this weekend on my blog about Greek catenas; what exists, how to classify them, etc. You can find the relevant posts here.

hatsoff

I think we'd all like to think that they're peppered with historical information. It's nice, for example, to imagine that the Gospel of Mark really was written by a stubby-fingered fellow. That kind of detail is mundane enough to seem plausible, and adds much-needed color to an otherwise empty historical picture.

Are such interpretations really flights of fancy, though? I suspect that, like other historical explorations, adopting a limited policy of assuming truth might do the trick, even if we aren't justified in doing so on an individual basis. It seems to me that mistaking legend and myth for history is in some cases less problematic than rejecting history for myth or legend.

Back to the issue of catenae, if they are not good for painting historical pictures of the Apostolic age, perhaps they are valuable for their theological bent, which clues us into the popular Christian topics of their contemporaries. Sadly, though, I am not interested enough to muddle through the nonsense of Cyril and Justin. This may be a task best left to Christians, who have greater intrinsic motivation.

Then again, if you're interested, knock yourself out. But are you really?